Nope. I’m with Scylla – whjich, BTW, is also where most of the gay men participating in this thread are. Marriage is a word with connotations I find porecious – and I don’t plan to give it up. Rather, I believe that there is no legally viable reason why it should be restricted from gay couples.
FWIW, for conservative religious folk, marriage is an institution ordained by God whereby a man and a woman are joined in a covenanted relationship for the purpose of creating a new family, the care and upbringing of any children that may come to be part of that family through birth or adoption, and the recognition by the community of the union that their love has brought about between them. Only secondarily is it an institution of the state or a legalization of sexual relations.
The problem lies in the fact that they’re stuck on the “a man and a woman” part, and, in their misperception of gay people, think that gays want it largely as a community endorsement of their right to have sex. Those who actually know gay people or have listened to the arguments from the pro-gay-marriage side have no objection to gays marrying ; they simply want it understood that there should be no law requiring their church to marry people contrary to their beliefs. And I’ve never seen a thing that suiggests that they should.
But if you look at my “religious definition of marriage” and substitute “two people” for “a man and a woman” (for the obvious reasons) and consider “ordained by God” as optional depending on belief, that definition sounds to me exactly like what the gay people demanding marraige are saying that they want.
So the problem bils down to a vocal minority intent on mandating their religious views on everyone, backed by a group that are buying their misrepresentation of the pro faction’s intent. And the solution to that is education. Or, in other words, the fighting of ignorance.
Define “family values.” And explain how two gay people making a legally recognized household – attempting to create, in their own perception at least, a family – and perhaps together raising a child or children they have adopted or one of them has borne or begotten, erodes those family values.
You shouldn’t have to give up marriage. You are right about the solution, but the problem is, as you saw it: those conservative elements that are not willing to “surrender” anything.
[hijack]Poly, I just want to add here that I would love to swill a few beers (or coffees, sodas, beverage of your choice) with you and talk about Life, the Universe, and Everything. The D. Adams book as well as the real thing.
You, Siege, and others I know in real life are what prevent me from genuinely hating religion (I’m an atheist).
If you’re ever in Seattle, contact me (my email’s in my profile), and if I’m ever in N.C., I’ll try to reach you. Seriously. I’d love to spend a day fishing, at a museum, whatever, just talking and hanging out. You and Siege and vanilla (and others I know IRL) are what makes religion and religious people something other than “the enemy.”
What values? Love? Allowing two gay people who love one another to solemnify/officially proclaim their union does not erode love, it merely displays a different facet of love to the public in an open fashion.
What other values? Fidelity? Honesty? Loyalty? Bravery? All only enhanced and expanded by the removal of the current, inappropriate lack of equal protection for same-sex couples.
Unless you’re talking about the values of dysfunctional families, “values” like prejudice, discrimination, segregation and hatred, there are no values eroded by gay marriages. None. The argument is a pernicious and illogical red herring invented by those who believe that their personal take on morality, not the Constitution, should be the basis of public policy.
Tell you what, how about a precise definition of family values and the exact mechanism by which they’re eroded and we’ll be happy to answer your question.
Information: the prime minister has made clear that that will be included in the federal same-sex marriage legalization bill, a draft of which should be unveiled in about a week. Not that it was necessary - it was already the case that churches didn’t have to solemnize marriages they didn’t want to.
E.g., although an Orthodox Jewish rabbi was empowered to celebrate a state marriage, he did not have to marry a Jew to a Gentile, even though such marriages are permitted by the state. Such a couple would have to marry either in the Gentile’s church or at the proverbial City Hall.
Still I suppose there’s no harm in clarifying the existing law.
At any rate, I agree with those who’ve pointed out that if having the word “marriage” isn’t important for gay people. then it’s not important for straight people either; and if straight people bristle at the prospect of having their marriage called something else, they should understand why we at least don’t permanently settle for having our marriage called something else.
Let’s review my positions on all the recent homosexuality-related threads:
I fully support the legislative repeal of sodomy laws; I am skeptical of the courts doing so on a general principle that has nothing to do per se with homosexuality.
I fully support extending all the civil benefits of marriage to homosexuals, though I advocate compromise on the label used.
I’ve suggested that basic evidentiary burdens be met when accusing a public figure of homophobia.
I’ve stated that, while I have no problems with attending Gay Pride events myself, I can understand not wanting to take a four year old along to such an event.
If that bundle of positions equates to “bigotry,” then you don’t know the meaning of the word. Apparently, in Mockingbird-land, it means “someone who is in less than 100% lockstep agreement with me.” I assure you, to the rest of the world it does not.
Here’s something you need to grasp, fucktard: it doesn’t pay to alienate people who, on balance, support your cause. Calling people who support legislative solutions to gay issues “bigots” only discourages them from continuing to publicly support those solutions. Really: why bother when it only garners insults from those whose rights you’re advocating?
It is perceived as having religious significance, and that’s what matters here. Fenris’s analogy to the “hacker/cracker” semantic debate is precisely appropriate.
A great many people, most of whom are not cut from the Fred Phelps/Jerry Falwell mold, think (rightly or wrongly) of marriage as being religious in nature. They see (rightly or wrongly) the issuance of a marriage license as the state’s recognition of a specific religious institution. And for that reason, they are uncomfortable with calling a gay union a “marriage.”
Now, you can continue to fight these people of goodwill over semantics, or you can enlist them as allies in your cause by appealing to their basic sense of fairness in a way that does not step on their religious sensibilities. Personally, I think building consensus on these things is a good strategy. YMMV, I suppose.
First, Mockingbird needs to apologize for calling Dewey a bigot. I’ve seen real-life bigots, and Dewey does not resemble them in any way.
Next,
Mostly agreed here, although I am more confident that the next victory will be based on equal protection.
[/quote]
Mostly agreed here, as well, although I would prefer to be called married and not civil unioned. I don’t want some Jim Crow inferior ceremony; I want my relationship to regarded with the same degree of respect and legality that Dewey’s is.
Here’s where Dewey tends to lawyer a point to death. Life is not a courtroom, and one need not meet the same burden of proof one would require in a criminal case. I can read code words and know the malice behind them.
Well, I’ve seen plenty of kids at the DC gay pride parade. Mind you, this is a conservative area, so you’re not going to see giant penis balloons and leather men parading their bare asses in chaps. DC Pride is a family affair in every sense of the word.
I trust that is the voice of a parent not wishing his child to be exposed to overtly sexual displays, but who would have no problem going to a PFLAG event with his child.
uote]
Sorry, Dewey, but that’s specious reasoning. Marriage may have a religious dimension, but it is a state-endorsed institution. No religious test is required for marriage, nor may the state recognize any one religion’s form of marriage over another’s.
Two atheists getting a cheapo ceremony down at city hall are as married as a Christian couple in a lavish wedding at the cathedral or two Jews under a chuppah. No religious element is required for a valid marriage to be recognized by the state.
Or is Dewey prepared to tell SDMB atheists that they aren’t really married?
Doomed or no, how would you feel about your “marriage” becoming a “civil union.” Seriously.
No one is arguing that equal rights is, legally, what everyone wants; the argument is that “marriage” carries with it social connotations that are worth striving for.
Who said anything about courtroom standards of proof? I was talking about simple evidentiary burdens – in short, a simple notion of fairness. I was saying you shouldn’t attach a damning label to someone unless you’ve got a pretty good basis for doing so.
It isn’t specious reasoning for the reason I noted in the very first sentence of my post: we’re dealing in a very real way with the way the word “marriage” is perceived.
You can logically prove that the marital institution is available outside of any religous connotation (as in your atheist example), but that doesn’t matter, any more than it would matter if you could logically prove that “hacker” only means clever white-hat computer programmers. For a great many Americans, the phrase “marriage” implies civic recognition of a religious institution, and they will be opposed to changes that appear to alter that association.
How does that make me feel? Who the fuck are you, Barbara Walters?
If my “marriage” became a “civil union,” I wouldn’t give a flying fuck. I’m still “married” in the eyes of God and the church, regardless of the label that allows me to file a joint return. Nor would such a change prevent me from self-describing myself to others as “married.” I honestly can’t think of any way that change in nomenclature would affect my life in the slightest.
Although I admit “Civilly united filing jointly” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue smoothly.
And this is why the SDMB exists–to fight ignorance, not surrender to it. Let us say that you are right and that many Americans would oppose gays having access to what they believe to be a religious institution–so? Many Americans also believe that Christian religious dogma should be taught in public schools, but I don’t see anyone saying that we should abandon the First Amendment due to popular demand.
If many Americans oppose gay marriage, then they will have to be educated.
